View Single Post
Old 10-23-2003, 05:55 AM   #27
Skunk
Banned User
 

Join Date: September 3, 2001
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Age: 63
Posts: 1,463
Quote:
Originally posted by Azred:

I agree that certain chemicals might lead to an increase is the risk for developing a cancer or that genetically modified organisms might be bad for my health, but I think it is a waste of time to sit in the corner being worried about what things might cause me harm. I could trip when I get out of bed in the morning, fall, hit my head on the nightstand, and die. These people need to quit "what-iffing" themselves to death.
That is a very valid point, and I don't dispute the logic of it.

Having said that, new drugs for humans have to go through rigourous testing that often delays their release for 5 or more years - I doubt if anyone would argue against this process. However the rules for animal drugs are much looser and it is rare for the research to extend to the effects that these drugs will have when ingested by humans.

To me this appears to be a loophole - if a drug is to be administered to an animal that is destined for human consumption, shouldn't the drug meet the same exacting standards as those imposed upon drugs designated for direct usage by humans? Afterall, the end destination is the same.

I agree with you that one may indeed have an accident today and that one should not worry about the possibilty.
However, if you know it is icy on the roads outside, you will reduce your speed - because you know that to maintain the normal speed would increase (but by no means guarantee) the risk of an accident. And reducing your speed does not prevent you from arriving at your destination.

Looking at the hormone-drug issue in the same manner, if one does not inject these drugs into the animal, it will not prevent the animal from growing - but it will reduce the risks involved.

And if one looks at the issue from a purely financial perspective? While it is true that the removal of the hormone-drug from cattle rearing will increase production costs, the burden of caring for the increased number of cancer patients is more than likely to off-set the pecuniary gain.
Cancer is a very expensive illness to treat.

[ 10-23-2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]
Skunk is offline   Reply With Quote